Most prompt labels do not co-occur with other labels, indicating studies narrowly focus on single prompt characteristics¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? 224 of the 283 prompt types (79.15%) did not co-occur with any other labels, and most co-occurrence frequencies ranged between two and four, except the strong cognitive–metacognitive pairing. → Jasmin Breitwieser 2026

Evidence¶

Jasmin Breitwieser 2026¶

Jasmin Breitwieser, André Bittermann, Maria Theobald, Tim Lauer, Mirijam Schaaf, Garvin Brod. (2026). Digital Prompting in Education: A Design Framework and Bibliometric Analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10164-1

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Network analysis of prompt type co-occurrences within studies using multi-level modularity optimization, identifying ten clusters. The article reports the printed co-occurrence statistics and notes that, apart from the strong co-occurrence between cognitive and metacognitive prompts, most frequencies were relatively low.

"In fact, the majority of prompt labels (224 of the 283 types; 79.15%) did not co-occur with any other labels. This indicates that most studies focus narrowly on a single prompt characteristic, with limited exploration of how different strategies or formats interact or compare."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The digital prompting literature uses 283 distinct prompt labels, most of which appear in only one publication — related
• Co-occurrence patterns link prompt functions with presentation formats, such as self-explanation prompts with response format and adaptive presentation labels — reports the opposite
• Intrinsically motivated students form reflective-iterative metacognitive co-occurrence networks, but overall ENA centroid positions do not differ significantly between motivational groups — related